1
|
Streck JM, Rigotti NA, Livingstone-Banks J, Tindle HA, Clair C, Munafò MR, Sterling-Maisel C, Hartmann-Boyce J. Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 5:CD001837. [PMID: 38770804 PMCID: PMC11106804 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001837.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital. SEARCH METHODS We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanna M Streck
- Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (MA), USA
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - Hilary A Tindle
- Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Carole Clair
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Marcus R Munafò
- School of Experimental Psychology and MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lee CM, Seo YB, Paek YJ, Lee ES, Kang HS, Kim SY, Roh S, Park DW, An YS, Jo SH. Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea. Korean J Fam Med 2024; 45:69-81. [PMID: 38414371 DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.23.0142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2023] [Accepted: 11/03/2023] [Indexed: 02/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheol Min Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoo-Bin Seo
- Department of Family Medicine, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo, Korea
| | - Yu-Jin Paek
- Department of Family Medicine and Health Promotion Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea
| | - Eon Sook Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Hye Seon Kang
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, Bucheon, Korea
| | - Soo Young Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, Hallym University Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sungwon Roh
- Department of Psychiatry, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Won Park
- Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoo Suk An
- Department of Psychiatry, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang-Ho Jo
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rábade-Castedo C, de Granda-Orive JI, Riesco-Miranda JA, De Higes-Martínez E, Ramos-Pinedo Á, Cabrera-César E, Signes-Costa Miñana J, García Rueda M, Pastor-Esplá E, Jiménez-Ruiz CA. Clinical Practice Guideline of Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) on Pharmacological Treatment of Tobacco Dependence 2023. Arch Bronconeumol 2023; 59:651-661. [PMID: 37567792 DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2023.07.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/13/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There are multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments against nicotine dependence. However, there are few guidelines to answer frequent questions asked by a clinician treating a smoker. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to facilitate the treatment of tobacco addiction. MATERIAL AND METHODS 12 PICO questions are formulated from a GLOBAL PICO question: "Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of tobacco dependence". A systematic review was carried out to answer each of the questions and recommendations were made. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to grade the certainty of the estimated effects and the strength of the recommendations. RESULTS Varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and cytisine are more effective than placebo. Varenicline and combined nicotine therapy are superior to the other therapies. In smokers with high dependence, a combination of drugs is recommended, being more effective those associations containing varenicline. Other optimization strategies with lower efficacy consist of increasing the doses, the duration, or retreat with varenicline. In specific populations varenicline or NRT is recommended. In hospitalized, the treatment of choice is NRT. In pregnancy it is indicated to prioritize behavioral treatment. The financing of smoking cessation treatments increases the number of smokers who quit smoking. There is no scientific evidence of the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of smoking cessation in adolescents. CONCLUSIONS The answers to the 12 questions allow us to extract recommendations and algorithms for the pharmacological treatment of tobacco dependence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos Rábade-Castedo
- Servicio de Neumología, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, La Coruña, Spain.
| | - José Ignacio de Granda-Orive
- Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario 12 de octubre Madrid, Spain; Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
| | - Juan Antonio Riesco-Miranda
- Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario de Cáceres, Cáceres, Spain; Centro de Investigación en Red de enfermedades respiratorias (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain; Instituto Universitario de Investigación Biosanitaria de Extremadura (INUBE), Spain
| | - Eva De Higes-Martínez
- Unidad de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Spain; Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Ángela Ramos-Pinedo
- Unidad de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Spain; Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Eva Cabrera-César
- Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain
| | - Jaime Signes-Costa Miñana
- Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Valencia (INCLIVA), Valencia, Spain
| | | | - Esther Pastor-Esplá
- Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario San Juan de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
| | - Carlos A Jiménez-Ruiz
- Unidad Especializada en Tabaquismo de la Comunidad de Madrid, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Coleman SRM, Menson KE, Kaminsky DA, Gaalema DE. Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A NARRATIVE REVIEW WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR PULMONARY REHABILITATION. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2023; 43:259-269. [PMID: 36515573 PMCID: PMC10264547 DOI: 10.1097/hcr.0000000000000764] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Reducing disease burden in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) focuses, in part, on helping patients become more functional through programs such as pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Smoking cessation may be a prerequisite or component of PR, and determining which smoking interventions (eg, behavioral, pharmacotherapy, combination) are most effective can help guide efforts to extend them to patients with COPD. The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize evidence from studies testing smoking cessation interventions in patients with COPD and discuss how these interventions may be integrated into PR programs. REVIEW METHODS Searches were conducted in the PubMed and Web of Science databases. Search terms included "(smoking cessation) AND (RCT OR clinical trial OR intervention) AND (pulmonary OR chronic bronchitis OR emphysema OR COPD)." Published original studies were included if they used a prospective, experimental design, tested a smoking cessation intervention, reported smoking cessation rate, and included patients with COPD or a subgroup analysis focused on smokers with COPD. SUMMARY Twenty-seven distinct studies were included in the review. Most studies tested multitreatment smoking cessation interventions involving some form of counseling in combination with pharmacotherapy and/or health education. Overall, smoking cessation interventions may help promote higher rates of smoking abstinence in patients with COPD, particularly multifaceted interventions that include intensive counseling (eg, individual, group, and telephone support), smoking cessation medication or nicotine replacement therapy, and health education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sulamunn R. M. Coleman
- Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
| | - Katherine E. Menson
- Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
| | - David A. Kaminsky
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
| | - Diann E. Gaalema
- Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
Background Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). Main results We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit. Authors' conclusions Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation. Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects? Key messages · Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together). · Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline. · Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time. What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'? Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure. What did we want to find out? We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know: · how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and · how many people had unwanted effects. What did we do? We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking. What did we find? We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with: · placebo or no medicine; · nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum; · bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking); · another NRPA; · e‐cigarettes. The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries. Main results People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people). Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people). For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop. The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline. What are the limitations of the evidence? The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence. Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true. How up to date is the evidence? The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.
Collapse
|
6
|
Livingstone-Banks J, Fanshawe TR, Thomas KH, Theodoulou A, Hajizadeh A, Hartman L, Lindson N. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD006103. [PMID: 37142273 PMCID: PMC10169257 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006103.pub8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lilian Hartman
- University of Oxford Medical School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Raspe M, Bals R, Bölükbas S, Faber G, Krabbe B, Landmesser U, Al Najem S, Przibille O, Raupach T, Rupp A, Rustler C, Tuffman A, Urlbauer M, Voigtländer T, Andreas S. [Smoking cessation in hospitalised patients - Initiate among inpatients, continue when outpatients - A Position Paper by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) Taskforce for Smoking Cessation]. Pneumologie 2023. [PMID: 37186277 DOI: 10.1055/a-2071-8900] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
Tobacco smoking is the greatest preventable health risk. The effects are serious, both individually and societal. Nevertheless, the current prevalence of tobacco smokers in Germany is still high at around 35 %. A recent strong increase in actively smoking adolescents (14- to 17-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 16 %) and young adults (18- to 24-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 41 %) is also a cause for concern. About a third of all inpatients continue smoking while being treated. The hospitalization of active smokers in acute and rehabilitation hospitals serves as a "teachable moment" for initiation of cessation offers. An intervention that begins in hospital and continues for at least a month after discharge results in about 40 % additional smokefree patients. It is scientifically well-researched, effective and cost-efficient. After initiation in hospital these measures can be continued via ambulatory cessation programs, rehabilitation facilities, an Internet or telephone service. In Germany, there are structured and quality-assured cessation offers, both for the inpatient and for the outpatient area. The biggest obstacle to broad establishment of such offers is the lack of reimbursement. Two feasible ways to change this would be the remuneration of the existing OPS 9-501 "Multimodal inpatient treatment for smoking cessation" and the establishment of quality contracts according to § 110a SGB V. An expansion of tobacco cessation measures in healthcare facilities would reduce smoking prevalence, associated burden of disease and consecutive costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthias Raspe
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Mitglied der Freien Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, und des Berlin Institute of Health, Fächerverbund für Infektiologie, Pneumologie und Intensivmedizin, Klinik für Pneumologie, Beatmungsmedizin und Intensivmedizin mit dem Arbeitsbereich Schlafmedizin, Berlin
| | - Robert Bals
- Klinik für Innere Medizin V - Pneumologie, Allergologie, Beatmungsmedizin, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar
| | - Serve Bölükbas
- Klinik für Thoraxchirurgie, Universitätsmedizin Essen - Ruhrlandklinik, Essen
| | - Gerhard Faber
- CELENUS Teufelsbad Fachklinik Blankenburg, Blankenburg
| | - Bernd Krabbe
- Herz-Kreislaufmedizin/Angiologie, UKM Marienhospital Steinfurt, Steinfurt
| | - Ulf Landmesser
- Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité, Klinik für Kardiologie, Angiologie und Intensivmedizin, Berlin
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin
- Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin
- DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Berlin
| | | | | | - Tobias Raupach
- Universitätsklinikum Bonn (AÖR), Institut für Medizindidaktik, Bonn
| | | | - Christa Rustler
- Deutsches Netz Rauchfreier Krankenhäuser & Gesundheitseinrichtungen DNRfK e. V., Berlin
| | - Amanda Tuffman
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik V, Klinikum der Universität München, Standort Innenstadt, München, außerdem Deutsches Zentrum für Lungenforschung
| | - Matthias Urlbauer
- Medizinische Klinik 3 (Schwerpunkt Pneumologie) am Klinikum Nürnberg, Universitätsklinik der Paracelsus Medizinischen Privatuniversität, Nürnberg
| | - Thomas Voigtländer
- Deutsche Herzstiftung e. V., Frankfurt
- MVZ CCB Frankfurt und Main-Taunus, Frankfurt
| | - Stefan Andreas
- Lungenfachklinik Immenhausen, Immenhausen, außerdem Abteilung Kardiologie und Pneumologie der Universitätsmedizin Göttingen und Deutsches Zentrum für Lungenforschung
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wei X, Guo K, Shang X, Wang S, Yang C, Li J, Li Y, Yang K, Zhang X, Li X. Effects of different interventions on smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2022; 136:104362. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2021] [Revised: 07/21/2022] [Accepted: 09/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
9
|
Feng L, Lv X, Wang Y, Chu S, Dai Z, Jing H, Tong Z, Liao X, Liang L. Developments in smoking cessation interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the past 5 years: a scoping review. Expert Rev Respir Med 2022; 16:749-764. [PMID: 35916493 DOI: 10.1080/17476348.2022.2108797] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Smoking cessation is the most effective strategy for slowing the progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, COPD patients find it difficult to quit smoking with standard cessation interventions. AREAS COVERED A scoping review of smoking cessation for COPD patients was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for all studies published between 1 January 2016 and 22 September 2021. Four themes were set up and 47 studies were included eventually. The majority of the included studies (61.7%, 29/47) investigated efficacy and effectiveness, including new strategies for extended treatment and mobile health (mHealth) delivery approach. Studies examining accessibility and utilization (31.9%, 15/47), safety (10.6%, 5/47), and health economics (6.4%, 3/47) were also reviewed. The quality of the included randomized controlled trials was also evaluated. EXPERT OPINION Pharmacotherapy combined with behavioral interventions delivered via mHealth may be a promising strategy to help COPD smokers quit. However, the overall quality of the current studies is poor, making it challenging for clinicians to make informed decisions. Future high-quality studies are needed to provide conclusive evidence on the optimal pharmacotherapies and the most cost-effective comprehensive smoking cessation interventions, particularly those integrated into disease management for smokers with COPD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lin Feng
- Department of Research on Tobacco Dependence Therapies, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaoshuang Lv
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Yingquan Wang
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Shuilian Chu
- Department of Research on Tobacco Dependence Therapies, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Zeqi Dai
- Center for Evidence Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100010, China
| | - Hang Jing
- Department of Research on Tobacco Dependence Therapies, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Zhaohui Tong
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Xing Liao
- Center for Evidence Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100010, China
| | - Lirong Liang
- Department of Research on Tobacco Dependence Therapies, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kuo CW, Chen CY, Wu CH, Chen CW, Guo FR, Yang SC. Multiple in-hospital counseling increases six-month smoking abstinence among individuals participating in a hospital-initiated smoking cessation program. Addict Sci Clin Pract 2022; 17:29. [PMID: 35597973 PMCID: PMC9123762 DOI: 10.1186/s13722-022-00310-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2021] [Accepted: 04/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A cessation program for hospitalized smokers is an effective strategy to achieve smoking abstinence. The effects of multiple in-hospital counseling sessions on 6-month smoking abstinence require further investigation. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the data of smokers who participated in hospital-initiated cessation programs at a medical center between 2017 and 2019. Data on age, sex, comorbidities, daily number of cigarettes, cessation motivation, nicotine dependence, cessation medications, discharge diagnosis, length of hospitalization, and intensive care unit admission were collected. We conducted multiple logistic regression analysis to investigate the effect of multiple in-hospital counseling sessions on 6-month sustained smoking abstinence. Sensitivity analyses were carried out excluding participants who underwent post-discharge cessation programs and assuming that the loss to follow-up participants had failure in 6-month smoking abstinence. RESULTS A total of 1943 participants aged ≥ 20 years were analyzed. Compared with single in-hospital counseling session, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for 2 and ≥ 3 counseling sessions were 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 1.98) and 2.02 (95% CI 1.27 to 3.22), respectively, with a significant trend for increasing the number of counseling sessions (P < 0.001). The results remained significant after excluding participants who underwent a post-discharge cessation program or when assuming that lost to follow-up participants had failure in smoking abstinence. CONCLUSION Multiple in-hospital counseling sessions were associated with a higher 6-month sustained smoking abstinence rate. This strategy could be used to reduce the prevalence of smoking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chin-Wei Kuo
- Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - Chuan-Yu Chen
- Department of Family Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
- Health Promotion Association, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - Chih-Hsing Wu
- Department of Family Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - Chang-Wen Chen
- Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - Fei-Ran Guo
- Department of Family Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
- Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Szu-Chun Yang
- Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Theodoulou A, Farley A, Hajek P, Lycett D, Jones LL, Kudlek L, Heath L, Hajizadeh A, Schenkels M, Aveyard P. Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 10:CD006219. [PMID: 34611902 PMCID: PMC8493442 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006219.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting. OBJECTIVES To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2'). SEARCH METHODS Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists. SELECTION CRITERIA Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking. MAIN RESULTS Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk. An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I2 = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I2 = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I2 = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I2 = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I2 = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I2 = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I2 = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I2 = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I2 = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I2 = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I2 = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I2 = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I2 = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I2 = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I2 = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Amanda Farley
- Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Deborah Lycett
- Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
| | - Laura L Jones
- Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laura Kudlek
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Laura Heath
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Rathi V, Hadda V, Mittal S, Mohan A. Varenicline for Long Term Abstinence in Acute COPD- the Dilemma Continues. COPD 2020; 17:224-225. [PMID: 32116036 DOI: 10.1080/15412555.2020.1731792] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Vidushi Rathi
- Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Vijay Hadda
- Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Saurabh Mittal
- Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Anant Mohan
- Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| |
Collapse
|